Sukarno stays in power - what would Australia do?

[Dilandu]

So let's assume that Indonesian socialist leader Sukarno was more competent in terms of economic (or at least listened to better advisor) and managed to avoid the economy crisis that led to his downfall in OTL 1966. He remained relatively popular and in power; Indonesia remained socialistic and pro-Soviet. And Indonesian military continued to get new and better weapons from USSR; subsonic Tu-16KS bombers were replaced with supersonic Tu-22K. Mig-19 fighters gave way to Mig-23 and Mig-25 interceptors. Old gun-armed Project 30-bis destroyers were replaced with export-build Project 61 anti-submarine ships, equipped with state-of-art surface-to-air and anti-ship missiles.

For the Australia, dangerous times started. It have a constant source of threat now - and not somewhere far away, but just a few hundred kilometers to the north. Indonesian warships roamed Timor sea, locking their fire control radars on Australian shipping. Long-range jet bombers and patrol planes were reaching as far as Perth. High-altitude Mig-25R recon planes buzzed over Darwin, blatantly disregarding Australian air space.

What would Australia do in such situation? Of course, it need a better military than in OTL - the opponent it faced is close enough to be a direct threat to Australian mainland. What exactly Australia should seek to procure then?

P.S. To simplify the situation, let's assume that Indonesia have access to roughly the same level of Soviet-build hardware as Iraq. With a larger emphasis of navy, of course. I.e.:


AIR FORCE
* Mig-21, Mig-23MS as main fighters (about 200 units), Mig-25PD as interceptors (about 50 units), a small number of Mig-19 and Mig-17 as point-defense interceptors
* Mig-25RB as high-altitude fast recon & high-altitude strike planes (about 25 units)
* Tu-16K and Tu-22K as long-range bombers with KSR-2 and KSR-11 missiles (about 25 + 25 units)
* Su-17 and Mig-27 fighter-bombers as short-range attack planes (about 200 units)

NAVY
* Project 68bis cruiser (the "Irian", single units) - refitted replacement of X turret with one Osa-M self-defense SAM and four dual 57-mm AK- 725 autocannons
* Project 56BE missile destroyers (Kotlin-class, four units) - Project 56 destroyers, refitted with the replacement of rear turret with Volna-M SAM and forward turret with two 76-mm dual AK-726 autocannons. Torpedo banks replaced with four P-15/P-15M launchers
* Project 30BKM missile destroyers (six units) - Project 30-bis destroyers, refitted with the replacement of torpedo bunks with P-15/P-15M launchers and installation of a single ZIF-75 four-barrel 57-mm gun and three AK-230 30-mm autocannons
* Project 30K destroyers (two units) - non-modified Project 30-bis, used as training ships
* Project 159AE anti-submarine frigates (Petya-class, eight units) - increased anti-aircraft armament by replacement of rear 76-mm gun with Osa-M SAM & installation of additional AK-230 autocannons
* Project 50 anti-submarine frigates (Riga-class, six units in service) - increased anti-aircraft armament by installation of additional AK-230 autocannons
* Project 1234E missile corvettes (Nanuchka-class, eight units)
* Project 205 missile boats (Osa-class, eight units)
* Project 185R missile boats (Komar-class, eight units in service)

* Project 633 submarines (Romeo-class, six units)
* Project 613 submarines (Whiskey-class, six units in service, additional two used as training ships)

* Project 266 and Project 266M minsweepers (Yurka and Natya class, twelve units in total)
* Project 770 and Project 770M and Project 771 medium amphibious ships (Polnocny-class, Polish-build, twelve units)

* Naval patrol aviation have two squadrons, one of ten Il-38 patrol planes, the other of twelve Be-12 flying boats
* Naval strike aviations have two squadrons, one of Su-7UMK, the other of Su-20 fighter-bombers
* Naval fighter aviation have two squadrons of Mig-23MS fighters, modified for extended range (required over sea)

Procurement plans for 1980s include:

* Four Project 61ME OR four Project 956ME destroyers (the proposed, but never build export version of Project 956 destroyer, with 100-mm cannons, Volna-M SAM and P-15M missiles) - to replace the existing destoryer fleet
* Six Project 1159 light frigates (Koni-III class) - to replace the Project 159AE and Project 50 anti-submarine frigates
* Two-to-four Project 877E submarines, to replace the Project 613 and later Project 633 boats
* Negotiations are conducted with USSR and China about modernizing a pair of existing Project 633 submarines to surface-launch P-15M anti-ship missiles from deck-mounted containers


ARMY
* S-75, S-125 land-based SAM's, a limited number of S-200 long-range SAM's (export versions)
* Coastal missile batteries with P-15M missiles
* Army units mainly equipped with legacy Soviet era weapons, like T-34 and T-54 tanks, M-30 howitzers, BTR-50 APC's. Several elite reigments are equipped with newer weaponry, such as T-62 tanks, PT-76 light tanks, D-30 howitzers and mobile SAM systems.

 

[Rule of cool]

Firstly, nothing much would change until 1966, after all decisions such as to buy the F111 assuming a 1969 in service date, not to buy the 4th DDG and go to Vietnam were made during Suharto's tenure and during the Konfrontasi period. Further even 1966 would only be a bit of a warning, the real shock would be in 1969 with the British withdrawing from the region by 1971 and the US introducing Nixons Guam doctrine.

Secondly, Vietnam would still be a bruising experience that would basically remove Conscription as a political option. This would mean reintroducing the 1951-59 conscription scheme of broad-based service in the Reserves would be off the table, despite its ability to address many of Australia's manpower problems in this scenario.

Thirdly, Australia is not set up for self-sufficient home defence and would have to undertake pretty major development projects. For example, despite Fleet Base West being planned from 1969 the first unit wasn't based there until 1984, this would have to be drastically accelerated. Similarly there were a number of airbases built or upgraded from the 60s until the 90s, this too would have to be drastically accelerated. I'd also think we'd get the Jervis Bay nuclear power reactor actually built, the Adelaide to Darwin railway competed decades earlier and other major development projects as well.

As for kit, a few early examples would be the DDL and LST MkII being built, not cutting the 2nd batch of subs from 4 to 2 to get the 2nd batch of A4s, keeping the F4s when the F111s were delivered and likely getting the full helicopter buy in 1972 including the AH1s.

 

[Dilandu]

Firstly, nothing much would change until 1966, after all decisions such as to buy the F111 assuming a 1969 in service date, not to buy the 4th DDG and go to Vietnam were made during Suharto's tenure and during the Konfrontasi period. Further even 1966 would only be a bit of a warning, the real shock would be in 969 with the British withdrawing from the region by 1971 and the US introducing Nixons Guam doctrine.

A good and logical analysis!

 

[GK Dundas]

While Nixon probably viewed the Indonesian problem with a certain distance. I suspect that the British might not.
Do you honestly think Suharto wouldn't take advantage of the situation if the British withdrew?

 

[Rule of cool]

@Dilandu a query for this scenario. Sukarno started lose authority through 1966, he was put under house arrest in March 1967 and died from liver failure in June 1970 due to inadequate medical care age 69. Given he's not going to live forever how long do you think he'd remain in power?

 

[Dilandu]

query for this scenario. Sukarno started lose authority through 1966, he was put under house arrest in March 1967 and died from liver failure in June 1970 due to inadequate medical care age 69. Given he's not going to live forever how long do you think he'd remain in power?

Likely up to his death in about mid-1970s, then it would be a matter of " who would be his successor"

 

[MrTopaz]

Somewhat related, but since “Indonesia as a more prominent geopolitical player” is enough of a niche what if scenario I thought it might be fruitful to drop a link to @SSgtC fantastic-but-lamentably-aborted alt history thread that covers some of Australia’s strategies and acquisitions, at least up until about 1960, if memory serves.

 

[SSgtC]

Somewhat related, but since “Indonesia as a more prominent geopolitical player” is enough of a niche what if scenario I thought it might be fruitful to drop a link to @SSgtC fantastic-but-lamentably-aborted alt history thread that covers some of Australia’s strategies and acquisitions, at least up until about 1960, if memory serves.

So, I haven't fully abandoned it, I've just been dealing with real life issues. And I actually had quite a bit written. And then fucking Microsoft killed Wordpad and I lost almost all of it.

 

[Arjen]

And then fucking Microsoft killed Wordpad and I lost almost all of it.

Have you tried opening your files with LibreOffice Writer or OpenOffice Writer? A long while ago I couldn't open some 'obsolete' MS-format documents with a then-new MS Word, OO Writer had no problem handling them. Saved me a lot of work. Some minor layout glitches, but the content was accessible, could be edited, saved.

 

[SSgtC]

Have you tried opening your files with LibreOffice Writer or OpenOffice Writer? A long while ago I couldn't open some 'obsolete' MS-format documents with a then-new MS Word, OO Writer had no problem handling them. Saved me a lot of work. Some minor layout glitches, but the content was accessible, could be edited, saved.

I'll check it out. I've seen them recommended a few times recently . So hopefully I'll be able to restore most of what I lost

 

[MrTopaz]

So, I haven't fully abandoned it, I've just been dealing with real life issues. And I actually had quite a bit written. And then fucking Microsoft killed Wordpad and I lost almost all of it.

Oh no! On both accounts! Well, you gotta look after number one, so don’t feel pressure on my account. And it’s a great story, fwiw.

 

[Rule of cool]

Likely up to his death in about mid-1970s, then it would be a matter of " who would be his successor"

That would create the option for one or two big splurges like the one that took place in 1963. One would be the big helicopter buy in the early 70s that was cut off at the knees, this might be combined with keeping the Phantoms, building the DDL and building the Jervis Bay nuclear reactor.

 

[Archibald]

Have you tried opening your files with LibreOffice Writer or OpenOffice Writer? A long while ago I couldn't open some 'obsolete' MS-format documents with a then-new MS Word, OO Writer had no problem handling them. Saved me a lot of work. Some minor layout glitches, but the content was accessible, could be edited, saved.

Seconded, for OpenOffice. Must be 15 years since I used MS Word - or whatever that thing is called nowadays. LibreOffice is good too.

OpenOffice can certainly open any word / microsoft file. Just intall it, right click "open file with -" and pick OpenOffice writter.

Worst case: I know a whole bag of free Internet tricks to salvage documents, if you need.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Don't forget the potential fox in the henhouse situation that was the cruiser RI Irian.

 

[SSgtC]

Don't forget the potential fox in the henhouse situation that was the cruiser RI Irian.

Eh, not really. Irian was obsolete the day she was laid down in Lenningrad in 1949. She was a gun armed light cruiser with no ability to threaten or defend against a modern warship. All the Australian's need to do is buy Harpoon for the Perth class or Walleyes for their A-4Gs, and then Irian only lives at their sufferance

 

[Archibald]

"asutralia" Somebody should fix the thread title.

 

[Dilandu]

Don't forget the potential fox in the henhouse situation that was the cruiser RI Irian.

By 1970s she most likely would be reduced to training ship. Albeit a refit is not out of question. Most likely not extensive, though.

She was a gun armed light cruiser

Erm. She was a heavy cruiser with 152-mm main armament. Sverdlow's were quite big units.

 

[Arjen]

By Washington Treaty standards, 152mm main armament made it a light cruiser.

 

[Rule of cool]

In 1973, during the Arab-Israeli war, a Sverdlov cruiser was leading a Task Force that was shadowing USS Coral Sea. It was expected to be able to fire several gun salvos at the carrier in the several minutes before it was sunk, even more if it was given the order to fire first.

The Argentine Belgrano was a similar light cruiser, escorting by a pair of Exocet armed destroyers, was considered to be such a threat that the RoE were somewhat loosely interpreted, and she was sunk by the SSN Conqueror as late as 1982.

Additionally, the RAN used Daring class gun destroyers until 1979 & 80, although in this scenario it's likely one of the more extensive upgrades would have been undertaken.

I wouldn't write off the Irian too soon, it might serve usefully into the 80s, it might even get some AShMs and/or SAMs in an upgrade.

 

[Dilandu]

By Washington Treaty standards, 152mm main armament made it a light cruiser.

Washington Treaty standards were abandoned by 1950s, and basically only used as reference points. The Sverdlov was only slightly smaller than Baltimore-class, and have a comparable armor.

 

[Dilandu]

I wouldn't write off the Irian too soon, it might serve usefully into the 80s, it might even get some AShMs and/or SAMs in an upgrade.

Hm. An argument, true.

 

[Arjen]

Washington Treaty standards were abandoned by 1950s, and basically only used as reference points. The Sverdlov was only slightly smaller than Baltimore-class, and have a comparable armor.

Better to compare the Sverdlov-class to the Cleveland- and Fargo-class light cruisers: 6" main armament, comparable armor (heavier in places), similar size.
If WNT standards were abandoned by the 1950s, the WNT categories of heavy/light cruisers should have been abandoned too, with the lot simply called cruisers.

 

[Rule of cool]

In any case, it's like an air force with mostly supersonic fighters against one with mostly subsonic fighters. The former hasn't won when they've destroyed the small number of supersonics, the subsonic can do damage and must be dealt with. Irian is a big ship with a lot of guns that would be capable of all sorts of mischief if allowed to operate unchecked.

 

[Hood]

Given that Irian deteriorated pretty quickly in Indonesian service I wouldn't sweat about it. An nonoperational cruiser tied up at the quayside isn't much of a threat to anybody.

 

[Dilandu]

Given that Irian deteriorated pretty quickly in Indonesian service I wouldn't sweat about it. An nonoperational cruiser tied up at the quayside isn't much of a threat to anybody.

She deteriorated because Soviet help was stopped after Sukharno downfall, and it became impossible to get spare parts or technologial assistance.

 

[Dilandu]

Okay, I changed the list: included Irian and other legacy ships (project 30-bis destroyers and project 613 submarines), reduced number of modern units to compensate. Irian got a 1970s refit, during which her X turret (rear superfiring) was replaced with Osa-M self-defense SAM and two pairs of modern AK-726 dual autocannons (of 76-mm caliber) were installed.

 

[SSgtC]

if allowed to operate unchecked.

And that is one hell of a big "if." With a Soviet aligned Indonesia in their backyard, Australia is likely to be a lot more proactive in upgrading their strike capabilites. This would mean at least that the 4th Perth class gets built, Harpoon missiles would be bought for them, Walleye bombs and Maverick missiles would also likely be purchased for their A-4 fleet. It's possible that they buy Vigilantes early instead of waiting years for Aardvarks. An F-4 or F-8 buy is also possible with a more urgent need to counter Indonesia. More MPA assets are also a given here

 

[SSgtC]

In 1973, during the Arab-Israeli war, a Sverdlov cruiser was leading a Task Force that was shadowing USS Coral Sea. It was expected to be able to fire several gun salvos at the carrier in the several minutes before it was sunk, even more if it was given the order to fire first.

So, after looking up the relevant info on the Soviet B-38 6" gun, I'm doubtful at how effective it would be against a carrier. Or rather, it's effectiveness in anything other than an unprovoked attack in peacetime. At its maximum elevation and firing AP ammunition, it had a maximum range of 34,000 yards. With the Mk5-bis turrets on the Irian, she could fire a maximum of 6.5 rounds per minute. So unless the Indonesians launch an unprovoked, surprise attack on Melbourne (or any other ships in the RAN) she's not going to accomplish much before being sunk. She needs to close to far too close range before being able to threaten an Australian Task Force.

Now, this would obviously change if she received a mid life upgrade to arm her with modern AShMs and SAMs. But the Indonesians would need to fund the design and refit completely on their own, since the Soviets never bothered to upgrade any of theirs beyond new sensors and radios. I would consider that scenario to be highly unlikely. Much more probable would be the Indonesians buying either a few Kashin or Sovremenny class destroyers in her place to give them a modern anti air and anti surface platform

 

[Dilandu]

She needs to close to far too close range before being able to threaten an Australian Task Force.

Which, as admiral Woodward demonstrated in 1981 on "Glamorgan" - even a single destroyer could penetrate the carrier outer screen & sneak close enough to hit poin-blank, if she played her cards right.

since the Soviets never bothered to upgrade any of theirs beyond new sensors and radios.

Erm?



"Dzerjinsky", X turret replaced with naval S-75 SAM



"Zjdanov", X turret repaced with Osa-M SAM (command cruiser refit)



"Admiral Senyavin", X and Y turrets replaced with Osa-M SAM and helicopter hangar (this refit was actually partly accidental - she was supposed to get the same refit as "Zjdanov", but due to bureaucratic error shipyard got the wrong impression that the Y turret must be removed, not the X. When the mistake was cleared, the Y turret was already removed, so it was simpler to quickly fit the helicopter hangar in place and pretend that it was exactly the idea)

Also, at least three more cruisers got a partial refit with four AK-230 CIWS added.

 

[kocovgoce]

The Australian answer

 

[Dilandu]

The Australian answer

A possibility, actually. While expensive, F-14 is much better suited for area cover & long-range operations over sea.

 

[Rule of cool]

So, after looking up the relevant info on the Soviet B-38 6" gun, I'm doubtful at how effective it would be against a carrier. Or rather, it's effectiveness in anything other than an unprovoked attack in peacetime. At its maximum elevation and firing AP ammunition, it had a maximum range of 34,000 yards. With the Mk5-bis turrets on the Irian, she could fire a maximum of 6.5 rounds per minute. So unless the Indonesians launch an unprovoked, surprise attack on Melbourne (or any other ships in the RAN) she's not going to accomplish much before being sunk. She needs to close to far too close range before being able to threaten an Australian Task Force.

Now, this would obviously change if she received a mid life upgrade to arm her with modern AShMs and SAMs. But the Indonesians would need to fund the design and refit completely on their own, since the Soviets never bothered to upgrade any of theirs beyond new sensors and radios. I would consider that scenario to be highly unlikely. Much more probable would be the Indonesians buying either a few Kashin or Sovremenny class destroyers in her place to give them a modern anti air and anti surface platform

A surprise attack when shadowing a carrier is the best case scenario, and I have little doubt that a few minutes of shelling would do significant damage to aircraft ranged on the flight deck. However historical exercises have shown that ships often do go undetected and can make surprise attacks, in one exercise a RAN frigate found itself within gun range of an 'enemy' airbase and 'shelled' it but got reprimanded for ruining the exercise. So the Irian would have to be marked under any circumstances, guns only or a missile refit.

 

[kocovgoce]

A possibility, actually. While expensive, F-14 is much better suited for area cover & long-range operations over sea.

Аnother thing is that the Australians have been operating the f-111 which is similar to the f-14

 

[SSgtC]

Which, as admiral Woodward demonstrated in 1981 on "Glamorgan" - even a single destroyer could penetrate the carrier outer screen & sneak close enough to hit poin-blank, if she played her cards right.



Erm?

View attachment 761729

"Dzerjinsky", X turret replaced with naval S-75 SAM

View attachment 761730

"Zjdanov", X turret repaced with Osa-M SAM (command cruiser refit)

View attachment 761731

"Admiral Senyavin", X and Y turrets replaced with Osa-M SAM and helicopter hangar (this refit was actually partly accidental - she was supposed to get the same refit as "Zjdanov", but due to bureaucratic error shipyard got the wrong impression that the Y turret must be removed, not the X. When the mistake was cleared, the Y turret was already removed, so it was simpler to quickly fit the helicopter hangar in place and pretend that it was exactly the idea)

Also, at least three more cruisers got a partial refit with four AK-230 CIWS added.

The article i saw only mentioned "partial refits" to the class without any further details. Looks like they (and I) missed a bunch

 

[Dilandu]

The article i saw only mentioned "partial refits" to the class without any further details. Looks like they (and I) missed a bunch

Quite likely. And I didn't mention some purely experimental refits - like "Admiral Nakhimov", which was used as experimental ship for "Strela" anti-ship missile testing (the A turret was disarmed and turned backward, two missile hangars were set at it sides, and a missile launch rail installed on bow)

 

[Rule of cool]

The Australian answer

Аnother thing is that the Australians have been operating the f-111 which is similar to the f-14

The RAAF started looking at the Mirage IIIs replacement pretty much as soon as the entire fleet was bought up to the standard fighter-bomber spec in 1969. In this scenario the RAAF would be looking to drastically increase its power, the retention of the leased F4Es would be a start. However, I think with so many TNI-AF aircraft on strength something like the F14 with its ability to swat enemy aircraft in large numbers from long distance would look like a great candidate as an 'early' Mirage III replacement.

One thing that might happen in this scenario is the RAAF might have to abandon the luxury of 'generational' purchases of aircraft and having large, homogenous fleets for convenient management. So, the RAAF might buy a wing of F14s for air superiority and convert the Mirage IIIs into more an attack-oriented fleet. So, by the late 70s the RAAF might have 2 sqns of F111s, 1 sqn of F4Es, maybe 3 sqns of Mirage IIIAs and 2 or 3 sqns of F14s. A real hodgepodge and messy for fleet management but not uncommon for many airforces around the world.

 

[kocovgoce]

What will they acquire in terms of air defense, initially American Hawk systems and later in the mid-80s and Patriot

 

[SSgtC]

The RAAF started looking at the Mirage IIIs replacement pretty much as soon as the entire fleet was bought up to the standard fighter-bomber spec in 1969. In this scenario the RAAF would be looking to drastically increase its power, the retention of the leased F4Es would be a start. However, I think with so many TNI-AF aircraft on strength something like the F14 with its ability to swat enemy aircraft in large numbers from long distance would look like a great candidate as an 'early' Mirage III replacement.

One thing that might happen in this scenario is the RAAF might have to abandon the luxury of 'generational' purchases of aircraft and having large, homogenous fleets for convenient management. So, the RAAF might buy a wing of F14s for air superiority and convert the Mirage IIIs into more an attack-oriented fleet. So, by the late 70s the RAAF might have 2 sqns of F111s, 1 sqn of F4Es, maybe 3 sqns of Mirage IIIAs and 2 or 3 sqns of F14s. A real hodgepodge and messy for fleet management but not uncommon for many airforces around the world.

With more orders coming, Grumman might be able to retain the daylight bombing capability that the Tomcat was supposed to have from the start (instead of dropping it to use the funds for other needed work). Likewise, the Navy might be able to convince Australia to help pay for the development of the F401 engine. With both of those, Australia could retire their Mirage fleet entirely. Probably replacing them on a 3-2 basis (2 Tomcats replacing 3 Mirage III).

Likewise, with the Tomcat first taking to the skies In 1970, it's very possible that the RAAF never bothers to lease the Phantom from the USAF. They could reasonably expect to begin receiving F-14s pretty rapidly (we know they probably aren't getting any until at least 1975, but they would probably expect them by 1972). Given how careful Australia would need to be with their budgets, there is no way they're operating a fleet of 4 different tactical aircraft, most of which could do the other's job in a pinch (only the F-111s offered a non-replaceable capability of precision strike, at least until the development of the Bombcat in the late 80s). In this scenario, the RAAF probably operates 24xF-111s and 72xF-14s.

 

[Rule of cool]

What will they acquire in terms of air defense, initially American Hawk systems and later in the mid-80s and Patriot

Australia had the Bloodhound 1 from 1961 to 1969, deployed to Darwin in 1965 for the Indonesian Confrontation and the Army had mobile 40mm bofors in the 60s. The Bloodhounds were retired and the Army got Redeye MANPADS and Rapiers in the 70s.

Australia isn't the best place for SAMs, the targets are too far apart to create any sort of interlocking SDAM system, so even Bloodhound 2s would be a point defence system, a big point to be sure and I think valuable, but only a few batteries in a handful of sites would make any sense. I suspect the Army would do something about it's air defence somewhat earlier, even if it was more portable AA guns.

 

[Rule of cool]

With more orders coming, Grumman might be able to retain the daylight bombing capability that the Tomcat was supposed to have from the start (instead of dropping it to use the funds for other needed work). Likewise, the Navy might be able to convince Australia to help pay for the development of the F401 engine. With both of those, Australia could retire their Mirage fleet entirely. Probably replacing them on a 3-2 basis (2 Tomcats replacing 3 Mirage III).

Likewise, with the Tomcat first taking to the skies In 1970, it's very possible that the RAAF never bothers to lease the Phantom from the USAF. They could reasonably expect to begin receiving F-14s pretty rapidly (we know they probably aren't getting any until at least 1975, but they would probably expect them by 1972). Given how careful Australia would need to be with their budgets, there is no way they're operating a fleet of 4 different tactical aircraft, most of which could do the other's job in a pinch (only the F-111s offered a non-replaceable capability of precision strike, at least until the development of the Bombcat in the late 80s). In this scenario, the RAAF probably operates 24xF-111s and 72xF-14s.

The F4Es were leased 1970-73 to operate in the strike role due to the late delivery of the F111s, they were not for the air defence role as we had 2 Mirage sqns for that: 1 in Butterworth Malaysia and the other in Williamtown NSW. This lease was arranged in 1969 to mitigate against decisions made in 1964 to accept the strategic risk of waiting until 1969 to get the new bombers. In the even the risk worked out, the Confrontation fizzled out in 1966, and Indonesia was amenable enough to Australia by 1968 that they allowed our Mirages to stage through on their way to Malaysia.

I suspect much of the timeline would remain the same as ours in this scenario as the differences wouldn't become apparent until 1967-69. In 1966 the British announced they'd withdraw in 1975, but it wasn't until post November 1967 devaluation and subsequent announcement that the British would be all but gone in 1971 that it would become clear that Australia would need to do something different from current policy. However, the US was fully engaged in the region, and we were alongside them in Vietnam so I doubt the urgency would be that great. In 1969 Nixon announced Vietnamization and the Guam doctrine, this with previous British actions would be the big kick up the bum in this scenario. Even so it would take us time to figure out what to do and, in the meantime, inertia alone would see the Phantom lease go ahead for it's original purpose as strike aircraft.

I suspect that it would be during the term of the Phantom lease that major decisions would need to be made. This situation is new to Australia so I suspect that initially the path of least resistance is followed, by 1973 the RAAF will have 2 sqns of F111, 1 sqn of F4E, 4 sqns of Mirage IIIO instead of 2 sqns of F111 and 3 sqns of Mirage IIIO. What will also become apparent is the RAAF needs to replace the Mirage fleet ASAP, which is where the F14 comes into it.